Subject: namedroppers mismanagement: it never ends

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 6 Dec 2002 06:01:37 -0000

It has been a week since my latest attempt to get Bush to stop screwing
around with my messages. As per his new instructions, I sent a message
to [email-masked] telling him to put [email-masked] on
the list of addresses from which submissions are automatically accepted.

Bush is continuing to delay and modify my messages. Furthermore, he has
done nothing to correct the other problems I identified:

   * He is continuing to manually publish my subscription address, which
     used to be private. Presumably, if I switch to another subscription
     address that he knows about, he'll publish that address too.

   * He is still failing to send ``This message is not being delivered''
     bounce notices back to his victims. Non-subscribers never realize
     that their namedroppers contributions have been destroyed.

   * He is continuing to delay messages from other people---in the last
     few days, a message from Bill Manning, a message from Randy Hall, a
     message from Ahau K'in, and some unknown number of messages that
     we'll never know about because they were silently discarded.

Meanwhile, it has been nearly two days since any namedroppers messages
have been delivered to my subscription address, while other subscribers
have received quite a few messages. Forged unsubscription requests with
no confirmation? ``Accidental'' problems in Bush's MTA? Stay tuned.

---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago

---

From: john heasley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 23:06:13 -0800

i nominate bush, should he choose to accept, moderator of [email-masked].

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 14:03:43 +0000 (GMT)

> i nominate bush, should he choose to accept, moderator of [email-masked].

god, no. Bush is uniquely unqualified to run a mailing list - for a
start, as an IESG member, he's policy, not admin.

we already have ietf_censored, running quite quietly without
disrupting the main flow of traffic on the ietf main list. (And
recognising the policy/admin distinction is why Harald gave up running
_censored on becoming IETF chair. I very much doubt Randy would have
thought to have done the same.)

Bush and Bernstein are both the kind of people who wish to rearrange
the world entirely to their own satisfaction. How unfortunate that
they must share that world.

L.

for us, anyway.

<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><[email-masked]>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 09:50:36 -0500

> they must share that world.

It would be a lot simpler if one or both of them qualified as a net.loon (we've
certainly seen enough of THOSE wanting to rearrange the world to their
satisfaction on this list). Unfortunately for tranquility, they're both correct
most of the time, and the rest of us get to watch the fireworks...

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 19:23:24 +0000

> they must share that world.

for the record, we must each work to create the world we want to live in
(and that we want our children to live in.)  i'm not in universal agreement
with dbj nor with randy bush, but i won't fault them for their passion about
making the world more like whatever they each think "better" means.